https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287550 In a cheque dishonour prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant proved issuance and dishonour of the cheque, service of statutory notice, and non-payment within time, so the presumption of liability under Section 139 operated. The accused neither replied to the notice nor led evidence to rebut that presumption, and the defence that the cheque was stolen was treated as an afterthought. The appellate court erred by demanding civil-trial style proof of accounts and by ignoring proved materials, including relevant account entries. The acquittal was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with the trial court's conviction restored. en-us Wed, 20 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Apr 2020 11:49:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287550 In a cheque dishonour prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant proved issuance and dishonour of the cheque, service of statutory notice, and non-payment within time, so the presumption of liability under Section 139 operated. The accused neither replied to the notice nor led evidence to rebut that presumption, and the defence that the cheque was stolen was treated as an afterthought. The appellate court erred by demanding civil-trial style proof of accounts and by ignoring proved materials, including relevant account entries. The acquittal was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with the trial court's conviction restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287550